Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I think it would have made sense for him to have been waiting for Spock if he didn't also have the ultimate goal of destroying Earth. Surely he'd have got that over with first? If only to pass the time .

I guess he could have done that, but he didn't. We can't really form an opinion on a hypothetical alternate version of the movie.

So, your answer to saving Trek, instead of the JJverse, is to make Star Trek a Will Smith franchise?

No. My point was that making Star Trek a dumb action franchise set 100 years after TNG would have had the same result as setting one the generation before. Both would be a success with the general public who prefer action to sci-fi.

This ties in with the premise of this thread, and my view that a continuity reboot wasn't necessary.

No. My point was that making Star Trek a dumb action franchise set 100 years after TNG would have had the same result as setting one the generation before. Both would be a success with the general public who prefer action to sci-fi.

This ties in with the premise of this thread, and my view that a continuity reboot wasn't necessary.

I think you're grossly underestimating the stigma that Star Trek had to overcome in order to be accepted by the general public. "Back to basics Star Trek" felt like an interesting proposition for most people, who remembered Kirk and Spock and understood that they, not unlike James Bond, could be updated for the 21st Century. "More Star Trek", which is why you recommend, doesn't have the same ring to it.

I think you're grossly underestimating the stigma that Star Trek had to overcome in order to be accepted by the general public. "Back to basics Star Trek" felt like an interesting proposition for most people, who remembered Kirk and Spock and understood that they, not unlike James Bond, could be updated for the 21st Century. "More Star Trek", which is why you recommend, doesn't have the same ring to it.

But surely having Spock in it would be more of a stigma than not? Spock is associated by the general Star Trek hating public as a nerd icon. Somebody that nerds like. The type of people who make "hilarious" jokes about people living in their mother's basement (NEVER GETS OLD!) would be turned off by a movie with Kirk and Spock in a way they wouldn't have been with new characters and no Vulcans on the bridge.

But surely having Spock in it would be more of a stigma than not? Spock is associated by the general Star Trek hating public as a nerd icon. Somebody that nerds like. The type of people who make "hilarious" jokes about people living in their mother's basement (NEVER GETS OLD!) would be turned off by a movie with Kirk and Spock in a way they wouldn't have been with new characters and no Vulcans on the bridge.

It's fun to speculate.

Well that movie exists and those people were not turned off, no speculation is necessary.

Are you even capable of making relevant points in a debate beyond inarticulate mud-slinging?

DalekJim wrote:

I have no time for hecklers and internet white knights, address my points intelligently and maturely or I won't respond. If you want to spend your time spouting inane, blunt, irrational aggression then take your posts to the YouTube comments section where they belong.

DalekJim, when you walk into a forum with a stick and start off by stirring up the anthill, you've waived the option of being able to play the "victim" card after the ants nibble on you a little in return. That's your doing; now own up to it.

Join the discussion because it's what you want to do, or don't. Treat people with respect, and chances are better than average that you'll get the same in return. But please: don't come in, bait people, and then try to act as if you're above it all and "Why are these people picking on me?" That sort of game from you is getting pretty tired, and here's the part where I recommend you dispense with it. Soon.

Also: post, not poster. Keep that in mind, and you'll go far.

__________________One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie
is that a cat has only nine lives. — Mark Twain

This is off-topic but to save me being stalked through another four threads. I hadn't seen Trek in a long time, saw the JJ film after getting stoned with some friends and really liked it. I then rewatched TOS, TNG and DS9 before seeing it again and hated it, finding that it lacked anything I'd enjoyed in the shows.

- Why you think being questioned about this is "mudslinging" when it clearly is not

Being stalked through thread after thread where this isn't to do with the topic is irritating. This is a thread about the necessity of the continuity reboot, not about how my opinion has changed over the years since release of a movie. Yet the same damn user has followed me here to bring up the same argument again. If he genuinely cared about the answer he'd PM me, he's just causing a fight in public for attention and I find it pathetic.

- Why the need to be snarky because people disagree with the your current opinion of AbramsTrek

I'm only snarky to the rude and the ignorant. My social skills aren't very good I admit but that's something I always try to work on. I'd explain why but I don't want to be stalked through thread after thread and be heckled over it.

But surely having Spock in it would be more of a stigma than not? Spock is associated by the general Star Trek hating public as a nerd icon. Somebody that nerds like. The type of people who make "hilarious" jokes about people living in their mother's basement (NEVER GETS OLD!) would be turned off by a movie with Kirk and Spock in a way they wouldn't have been with new characters and no Vulcans on the bridge.

It's fun to speculate.

Well that movie exists and those people were not turned off, no speculation is necessary.

In fact, Spock is probably the most popular character from it.

Back on topic, rebooting Star Trek is the best thing to ever happen to it. Let's be honest, Star Trek was dead. After driving the movie series into the ground and ending Enterprise with the single worst episode of its run, Trek wasn't really going anywhere. Thankfully, we got a movie that not only honored the past, but speaks to current audiences. It saved Star Trek and is merely the start of future greatness.

__________________
I have existed from the creation of the forum and I shall exist until the last thread is deleted from the server. Although I have taken the form of Awesome Possum, I am all posters as I am no poster and therefore I am a Mod.

Personally, I would have much rather have had Abrams and Co. just call this relaunch of the franchise a flat-out re-boot without jumping through the hoops of having Nero change the timeline...
...But that's just me.

No it isn't. it's me too.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 2009, and expect to enjoy 2013, but yeah, I still feel that a straight reboot without ties to past Star Treks would have been better. And I'll use Batman as my frame of reference. Adam West, Michael Keaton, and Christan Bale all made fine Batman stories on their own without relying on each other.